Judicial tyranny (You may now kiss the, um, "bride")

Latest Polls (view all)

Under the cover of Covid, and now in the shadow of the infamous Election Irregularities of that fated 2020 presidential election, with current emerging alleged election fraud in Nevada and Pennsylvania inconveniently slipping into the public discourse, there is proved a colluded ongoing Election Interference in the nomination of the Republican candidate, the likes of which has never occurred in our Constitutional Republic's history, albeit, the question remains: Do you support the plain-sight Election Interference of the Democratic Socialist party, employing its minions in their Propagandistic Media, and their Two Tiered Justice System?

98.82% No, I do not support Election Interference; I am a patriot unto our Constitution.

1.18% Yes, I do support Election Interference; the alternative, Donald Trump, to this mentally diminished president is far worse.

0% "What, me worry" if elections are rigged?

Click Here to Vote
85 Vote(s)

View all Polls

Judicial tyranny (You may now kiss the, um, "bride")

Published: Tuesday, October 14th, 2014 @ 4:16 pm
By: Brant Clifton ( More Entries )

Login to Send a Private Message to Brant Clifton

    Publisher's note: Brant Clifton sees the irony of an activist judiciary in N.C. regarding the gay life in his "bare knuckles" Conservative online publication known as The Daily Haymaker.

    Why bother having elections? We have these unelected law school graduates in black robes regularly stomping all over the will of the people and their elected officials. Want to make a rule or a law? Run it past a judge first.

    The judicial branch was established by our Founding Fathers as a referee on the executive and legislative branch. SOMEONE had to ensure those two acted in accordance with the elements of The Constitution. The problem has become that judges are simply making stuff up that aligns with the platform or wishes of their political patrons.

    In 1973, a portion of The Constitution meant to prevent soldiers and police from just kicking down your door and searching your place willy-nilly was magically transformed into a "Right" to taxpayer-subsidized abortion. No elected officials debated that or voted on it. Unelected judges legislated it.

    In May 2012, 61 percent of North Carolina voters agreed to codify the very reasonable, highly-logical statement that Marriage shall be defined as being between a man and a woman. Right in line with the laws of nature.

    The liberal hordes — determined to erase all gender lines — did what they normally do when they can't win at the ballot box: SUE. While being cheered on by the drive-by media, lefties shopped around for just the right federal judge.

    While that was going on, the US Supreme Court declined to hear challenges to the same-sex laws in North Carolina and other states — saying that it was an issue to be decided within the states. But that didn't stop federal judge Max Cogburn of Asheville – a Massachusetts native appointed first by Clinton and elevated by Obama to his current post — from sticking his nose into the affair:

    [...] "The issue before this court is neither a political issue nor a moral issue," Cogburn stated in his ruling. "It is a legal issue and it is clear as a matter of what is now settled law in the Fourth Circuit that North Carolina laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, refusing to recognize same-sex marriages originating elsewhere, and/or threatening to penalize those who would solemnize such marriages, are unconstitutional."[...]

    Really? What part of The Constitution does that?

    Didn't we just have national news where New Jersey didn't recognize a concealed-carry permit from Pennsylvania?

    (For those of you telling us how important it is to elect Republican senators, think about this: Cogburn got approved by the US Senate for his current position by a vote of 96-0. That means NO Republican opposition. Not even from our "Republican" senator Richard Burr.)

    We are really slipping into dangerous territory when unaccountable ideologues can wipe out, on the basis of personal beliefs, a law approved by the people and their elected representatives.

    Don't think this stops here. Wait until someone refuses to lease their property for a gay wedding or reception. Wait until a preacher refuses to officiate a gay wedding, or allow his or her church to be used for a gay wedding and reception. Businesses around the country are being threatened and fined by government agents all over the country for daring to refuse to conform.

    The Book of Genesis, with the retelling of the events at Sodom and Gomorrah, makes God's feelings about homosexual practices pretty doggone clear. Many Christians see The Bible as something to be taken literally. Is it the place of the government — especially unelected, unaccountable government agents — to tell people they have to set aside their religious beliefs documented in thousands-of-years old scripture or the sake of modern-day political correctness? What about the First Amendment protections for church-going folks?

    A good way to get around this might be to consider weeding government out of the institution of marriage. (I know, I know — good luck with getting government's tentacles off of something.) Statists have taken a sacred ceremony before God and turned it into a bureaucratic exercise akin to registering a real estate deed or getting a driver license.

    When is enough going to be ENOUGH? How long will we sit quietly by while the statist, progressive hordes rip this country to shreds?

Go Back

Login to Leave a Comment

Comments

Gene Scarborough said:

( October 17th, 2014 @ 4:17 pm )

I matriculated at Emory University after only 11 years of lower education. My second year I took my first course in Sociology. As a Baptist preacher's son, I had always assumed things were---and should be---as we did in my church. I wasn't stupid. I was just naive and underexposed to things outside the South of an Atlanta with only it's first million residents going rapidly toward 2 million. Now it is counted as some 8 million and growing rapidly still.

Like most great cities of this day, it has become an International Society. Emory is now, on purpose, inviting about 1/4 of its freshman class from other countries than my previous Ga / Fla / NE-raised classmates.

I discovered a concept called "cultural relativism" that first quarter. It meant that what is assumed "correct and proper" in one society is not the same for all. Rules (mores) and law are all based on how to get along without killing / rape / abuse / etc. The exact details differ from one culture to another, however.

For example, in Eskimo society, a part of being friendly is to invite any male visitor to sleep with your wife as long as she is consenting! Try that one with my little sweet wife from Rocky Mount, NC, and see if it flies ---- HARDLY!!! That would be grounds for an offense in any society = murder!

As I cited in another article and commentary on this one, I don't personally approve nor participate in homosexual relationships, but I am broad-minded enough to admit some folks of the same sex wish to marry and that is something I am compelled by a loving Christ to bless. The Pharisees would not bless it---and killed Jesus for not doing as they said to do.

When they wanted to stone a woman caught in adultery, Jesus said, "He who is without sin may cast the first stone." I am not in the stone slaughtering business, myself. In a society based on freedom of the individual (with a Constitution clearly stating such) I am not surprised by the verdict of the Judge.

Most Conservatives hate the decision BUT --- are they conserving southern convention or the Constitution of the US???? I "conserve" the concepts of the Constitution and my wider education which clearly shows "different cultures do things differently" --- as long as citizens are not harmed nor molested.

If you think about it (you don't have to agree with me, just THINK), it is the better side of Conservatism to, first, recognize what needs conserving and what is better changed as we learn more about the strange hormones flowing in the human body. From my 68 years of living, it's just not as simple as some of my growing up friends thought---and still do!

Christopher Maye said:

( October 16th, 2014 @ 3:44 pm )

Who is it who that has the legal authority to establish what does and does not abide by morality though? I consider it being, person is not harming people, property, or non-renewable resources without probably cause (which leads to another paradigm unrelated.) How does two people of the same gender sharing a legal contract that considers all of their assets, property of shared ownership?

Stan Deatherage said:

( October 15th, 2014 @ 6:36 pm )

Our nation's laws are derived from English Common Law, which are rooted in the Ten Commandments.

While I agree that the 1st Amendment insures that this nation will not establish a national religion, nothing in that amendment stipulates that our laws will not reflect an obligation to the morality that is at the core of English Common Law and the principled conviction of our Fore Fathers to establish a free nation 'governed by laws and not by Men.

Christopher Maye said:

( October 15th, 2014 @ 3:38 pm )

I was not speaking of religious law, rather governmental law. I'd consider it unconstitutional to take one group's belief, and make the rest of the nation follow by their [religion's] laws.

Gene Scarborough said:

( October 14th, 2014 @ 8:13 am )

One part of the article concerns me. The author states the Marriage Amendment simply states the "law of nature." I have heard and read this mis-concept several times of late. What it shows is few people are around the farm anymore!

The "law of nature" is that there are some bulls who prefer to mess with other bulls and the same is true of cows. Most farmers geld any bulls except the best they want to use as the stud for their herd this year. To prevent too much in-breeding the bull is changed once the cows are inseminated. Gelded bulls without the source of testosterone do strange acts when people are watching!

Now they can buy frozen sperm and artificially inseminate cows. Instead of bearing the expense of transporting a bull from, say Gernsey Island off Britain's coast, they can airfreight frozen sperm at a fraction of the cost. If you were to force cattlemen to "the laws of nature", you would have to outlaw such a procedure!

Scientists are trying to find out what makes a man or a woman with current research. The biblical depiction is simple and surface. The writers of the Bible thought from cover-to-cover that our world was flat / the sun rotated around it and was the center of this system / up until the exploration of sailors going west, most were convinced they would fall off in the process. Great angst and fear were present whenever a ship went out of sight of land!

This is the only "Natural and biblical" thing which is occurring with the Marriage Amendment. Another "natural" thing with the Marriage Amendment is simply allowing couples to be socially bound through legal marriage.

God did not make me with urges towards other men. The same is true with my wife. HOWEVER we all know other people not that way. My wife had a gym teacher who felt compelled to tour the locker room while the girls were showering. None of them liked it. All of them had a "strange feeling" about her.

Would it not be better to legally bless that coach with the right to marry some female and take care of her sexual urges?

If you look at it in this way, our obsession with sex and relationships is forcing "natural urges" into a mold that does not actually reflect Nature! Leave it up to religious fanatics to force others into their mold of narrow definition on "right and wrong."

I NEVER ask that you think as I think. I just ask that we THINK on this subject rather than pitch a fit of force with a Conservative stick --- that does not conserve natural science!

Stan Deatherage said:

( October 13th, 2014 @ 9:15 pm )

Christopher - How well versed are you on the first three books of the Old Testament?

Christopher Maye said:

( October 13th, 2014 @ 5:53 pm )

I honestly tried and failed so many times to understand how same-sex marriage could possibly be harmful. It will only effect the ones who choose to get married, and their families. Isn't the 'republican' idea to lessen government power to avoid a government regulating every part of our lives?

Gene Scarborough said:

( October 13th, 2014 @ 2:33 pm )

The Preamble is just as part of it as the body of the document, Stan = check THAT!!!

Stan Deatherage said:

( October 13th, 2014 @ 2:12 pm )

I have a pocket Constitution at the ready.

Cand you tell me the article of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" clause?

Gene Scarborough said:

( October 13th, 2014 @ 1:59 pm )

Sorry, Stan, but YES HE DOES!!! If it violates the Constitution of the US about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and that against discrimination ~~~ YES HE DOES!

Roy Cooper, our Attorney General, said in the beginning that it would violate the Constitution. We should have listened to our State's Lawyer! However conservative NC citizens listened to Billy Graham --- brought from his Parkinson's wheelchair in Black Mountain. A crying witness of conservatism does not persuade a Judge who has seen taars before.

Stan Deatherage said:

( October 12th, 2014 @ 9:33 am )

For everyone that is so excited about Same Sex Marriage, you have to know that the ruling of this one activist Federal judge out of Asheville will get appealed.
61% of North Carolinians voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. One activist judge does not have the gravitas to impose his will upon the 61% without a fight.

Court Strikes down NC Marriage Amendment

Lt. Governor Dan Forest on the Friday ruling from the Federal Court Judge on Same Sex Marriage